Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 415 (CHH)

Anant Dan Minj v. Union of India

2014-11-24

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

body2014
ORDER 1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “PRAYER Hence it is kind prayer before this Hon'ble High Court to directly pass an appropriate order as per Eligibility to arrest Mr. Narendra Modi and Mr. Amit Shah, and proper investigation shall be done for the other offender also. AND Kindly take necessary action to restrict/bann the all activities of BJP and its mother organization RSS permanently.” 2. Pleadings with respect to the facts taken to be the cause of action for filing the writ petition have been mentioned in paras 1 to 3 of the writ petition, which reads as under : “1. That due to very guilty this is the complaint that on 21st August 2014 which published on 22-08-2014 as Annexure P-1, when Mr. Narendra Modi came to Ranchi, at that time during Public meeting, when the Chief Minister of Jharkhand Mr. Hemant Soren was speaking about the problem of Jharkhand, that time the supporters of Mr. Narendra Modi started hooting and instead to stop there unmannered hooting by their BJP supporters, reversely Mr. Narendra Modi was smiling in stage and when the hooting rises too high then Mr. Modi indicated their supports to be calm. 2. That due to alleged reason Mr. Hemant Soren uncomfortably completed his speech on the problem of Jharkhand, and mannerly ended his speech. 3. That due to above incident it is reversely affected on Mr. Narendra Modi, because public took that incident as the insult of Jharkhand, as Annexure P-1 in which the Chief Minister of Jharkhand Mr. Hemant Soren challenged to come in election.” 3. Petitioner has further pleaded that bank account of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha has been seized due to recovery of Rs.71.65 lacs. On the one side the Election Commission is not taking any action against BJP for not submitting their election expenses of about Rs.7500 crores and on the other side the Election Commission strictly taking action at the time of election in Jharkhand. 4. On the above basis, the petitioner would submit that the above openly shows the untouchability behaviour against the tribals, particularly the tribal of Chota Nagpur Area. The petitioner has filed some newspaper clippings. He would also submit that as per the philosophy of Arastu, the Chess Master Amit Shah, who is the President of BJP, is also responsible. 5. 4. On the above basis, the petitioner would submit that the above openly shows the untouchability behaviour against the tribals, particularly the tribal of Chota Nagpur Area. The petitioner has filed some newspaper clippings. He would also submit that as per the philosophy of Arastu, the Chess Master Amit Shah, who is the President of BJP, is also responsible. 5. It would appear, whatever has been stated as the bundle of facts, have happened in the State of Jharkhand. Even otherwise, the writ petition raises political issues, which are ordinarily not decided by the writ Courts. 6. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and Others v. Union of India and Others, (1977) 3 SCC 592 , held thus : “149....... Of course, it is true that if a question brought before the Court is purely a political question not involving determination of any legal or constitutional right or obligation, the Court would not entertain it, since the Court is concerned only with adjudication of legal rights and liabilities........” 7. In Minerva Mills Ltd. and Others v. Union of India and Others, (1980) 3 SCC 625 , the Supreme Court held thus : 98. It is axiomatic that if a question brought before the court is purely a political question not involving determination of any legal or constitutional right or obligation, the court would not entertain it, since the court is concerned only with adjudication of legal rights and liabilities....... 8. In Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India and Others, (2008) 6 SCC 1 , the Supreme Court held thus : 219....... This Court in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India said: (SCC p. 660, para 149) “149. … if a question brought before the court is purely a political question not involving determination of any legal or constitutional right or obligation, the court would not entertain it, since the court is concerned only with adjudication of legal rights and liabilities.” Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that the legislation itself was intended to please a section of the community as part of the vote catching mechanism is not a legally acceptable plea and it is only to be rejected.” 9. In course of arguments, the petitioner also argued that a direction may be issued to the Home Secretary, Government of India, who in turn will direct the concerned Police Station in the State of Jharkhand to initiate criminal action against the respondents/accused No.1 & 2. 10. In the opinion of this Court, such direction cannot be issued by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, as it lacks territorial jurisdiction over any police station in the State of Jharkhand. 11. As an upshot, the writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself.